Why BSS/OSS transformations fail when IT leads alone
Digital transformation remains one of the telecom industry's greatest challenges. Despite billions invested in BSS/OSS modernisation, many programmes still fall short of expectations. So, is the real problem the technology – or who is leading the change?
For telecom operators, BSS/OSS transformation is no longer just a question of replacing legacy systems. These programmes shape how products are launched, how customers are served, how operations are run and how quickly the business can respond to market change.
Modernising IT remains essential, but platforms alone rarely determine whether a transformation succeeds. Composable BSS/OSS can support almost any commercial vision; the challenge is ensuring that vision is clearly defined, owned by the business and translated into measurable outcomes.
The strongest programmes therefore start with clear business ownership, executive sponsorship and measurable commercial value, rather than system implementation.
Industry research points in the same direction. BCG estimates that more than 70% of telecom transformation programmes fall short of their objectives. One of the most common causes is waiting too long to involve the business: according to the firm, “almost all IT-led transformations fail”. The business must define the operating model, project scope and desired business impact from the outset, while IT provides the technical capability to deliver it.
Meanwhile, Bain has found that successful transformation efforts have top-level sponsorship, often at the CEO level, because senior executives are better placed to break down functional, process and data silos where much of the value is often trapped.
Taken together, the message is clear: BSS/OSS transformation works best when business ownership is supported by strong technology execution.
A good example is Telstra’s T22 transformation, which ran from 2018 to 2022. Reflecting on the programme, former CEO Andy Penn said that "clarity in strategy and communications, as well as consistency in follow-through, was critical" and warned that "if you allow ambiguity to filter into what you're trying to do, suddenly you lose control of the agenda". Under T22, Telstra simplified its product portfolio, modernised legacy systems, adopted agile ways of working and fundamentally reshaped its operating model.
This kind of clarity is easier to maintain when transformation is broken down into strategic initiatives, then into the specific business capabilities needed to deliver them. Each capability can then be linked to tangible business value, giving each programme increment a clear target outcome.
With three to four increments a year, the business can realise regular benefits throughout the programme, creating momentum and supporting continuous improvement.
How to turn business engagement into business ownership
Most operators begin with a familiar picture: a fragmented technology landscape built up over time, usually through tactical decisions made to resolve immediate issues. The result is often multiple systems doing the same thing, or different parts of what should be a single solution, connected through a spider’s web of integrations.
When faced with this kind of complexity, it’s tempting to select a BSS/OSS vendor promising a seamless, integrated solution. But the harder question is how to implement that solution in a way that delivers meaningful business outcomes. That means changing the starting point from the systems being replaced to the people, processes and outcomes that will be affected.
Start by identifying all existing users of the systems being replaced, as well as those affected by the new operating model. In large Tier 1 operators, this can involve thousands of people. By mapping users through management structures to senior leadership, it becomes possible to identify the areas of the business most exposed to change.
The transformation objectives should then be broken down by business area and shared with the relevant teams. Those teams can then add day-to-day challenges, manual workarounds, swivel-chair processes and other pain points that need to be addressed.
Business change consultants can then collect whatever is available in terms of business processes and knowledge management artefacts, such as work instructions and user guides. But if current-state processes are poorly documented, do not spend months recreating them through discovery workshops. Move quickly towards the target “to be” model.
At this point, the business has defined what it wants from the transformation and should be accountable for realising those benefits. The conversation with IT and the supplier can then shift from “what can the system do?” to “how will the solution support the business value the programme is trying to create?”
Evolutionary versus revolutionary transformation
Once the business has defined the outcomes it wants to achieve, the next question is what kind of transformation is needed.
Evolutionary transformation focuses on improving the existing business. It addresses operational pain points, increases efficiency, simplifies processes, and enhances customer and user experiences.
Revolutionary transformation is more ambitious; rather than improving the business we have today, it asks where the organisation needs to be in five or ten years’ time and seeks to build the capabilities required to succeed in that future market.
Both approaches can be valid, but they require different business decisions. An evolutionary programme may be measured by efficiency, simplification and customer experience improvements. A revolutionary programme needs clearer executive alignment on future products, channels, markets and operating models. In both cases, the starting point has to be business ambition, not system replacement.
Transformation is ultimately about changing how the business operates, serves customers and creates value. The mistake many organisations continue to make is treating it as a technology programme.
The evidence increasingly points in the same direction: across operator programmes, consulting research and industry case studies, the common factor in successful transformation is rarely the technology itself. Success depends on business leaders defining the destination, maintaining executive sponsorship and measuring progress through business value rather than system milestones. Technology remains essential, but its role is to enable the target operating model, not define it.
For operators embarking on a BSS/OSS transformation, or trying to get an existing programme back on track, there are three important lessons:
- Transformation must be owned by the business leaders accountable for the outcomes, not just by the teams delivering the systems.
- Large programmes should be broken down into increments that deliver measurable business value, rather than deferred benefits at the end of a multi-year project.
- IT and suppliers play a critical role, but they should enable the target operating model, not define it in isolation.
At Cerillion, we've seen first-hand that technology alone does not deliver successful change. If you're planning a BSS/OSS transformation, or reassessing a programme already in flight, get in touch to discuss how to align your technology roadmap with the business outcomes you need to achieve.
